Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 64: Line 64:

:* And just because I’ve only just noticed it, [[User:Elli]] nailed it – {{tq|We should’ve held a case here, or at least some more clearly-well-defined process. Both the behavior of Levivich and Iskander323 should’ve been explored more in-depth, and that hasn’t, and won’t, happpen here.}} [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:* And just because I’ve only just noticed it, [[User:Elli]] nailed it – {{tq|We should’ve held a case here, or at least some more clearly-well-defined process. Both the behavior of Levivich and Iskander323 should’ve been explored more in-depth, and that hasn’t, and won’t, happpen here.}} [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

::Multiple arbs have indicated their primary reason for banning Iskandar was not the seven diffs, but rather his ”repeated” violations of his topic ban. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 02:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

::Multiple arbs have indicated their primary reason for banning Iskandar was not the seven diffs, but rather his ”repeated” violations of his topic ban. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 02:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:::For which action had already been taken. The explicit reason for the site ban was the seven diffs allegedly continuing a pattern of POV-pushing outside the area he was TBANned from. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 09:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

*Should this whole situation be added to [[List of Wikipedia controversies]]? [[User:JHD0919|JHD0919]] ([[User talk:JHD0919|talk]]) 14:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

*Should this whole situation be added to [[List of Wikipedia controversies]]? [[User:JHD0919|JHD0919]] ([[User talk:JHD0919|talk]]) 14:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

*:Not unless it gets [[WP:SUSTAINED]] outside coverage. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 14:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

*:Not unless it gets [[WP:SUSTAINED]] outside coverage. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 14:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Original announcement
  • About the right outcome IMO. Even if you’re unsympathetic to the additional-POV-pushing measure, which I can see, the points brought by SFR and HouseBlaster that the sitebanned user’s shown a disregard for this and past TBANs multiple times, and de facto entrapped another TBANned user, are valid and line up with the enough-is-enough principle – no user has an endless amount of rope, and in an ideal world there should be no such thing as an unblockable. I’m particularly a believer in the idea that if a newer user had generated the same timeline, they would’ve been swiftly blocked.
Meanwhile, Levivich’s TBAN violation was minor, both comparatively to what ARBPIA usually sees and just in general, and while a warning was justified because rules are rules, a siteban for it would’ve been wildly excessive; their non-ARBPIA behavior illustrated by Tamzin is concerning, but out of scope for Arbcom here. The direct reporting to ARCA/forcing (most) reports to be out in the open sounds good to me, and while I agree in principle with the ability to expand an ARBPIA TBAN’s scale, I’m honestly not entirely sure how often it’ll be used. The Kip (contribs) 07:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My TBAN violation was more serious than his. And I had two diffs, he only had one since “the last time”. The only reason he got indef’d and I didn’t is because I have more social capital on this website than he does. There was no justice, or even logic, nevermind prevention of disruption, in this decision. What happened here is an example of what I have written on my userpage. Thanks though to the almost-half of the panel that actually cared to base their decision on evidence and reason. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My TBAN violation was more serious than his. I would actually argue the latter, particularly your edit to your own talk page. If it was just that one alone I don’t think you’d have received a formal warning – it was a violation but the proportionate response would have been no more than officially stating it was a violation. A warning was imo justifiable for the other of your diffs though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I looked at the diffs to see why there were two different penalties, and it made sense to me when I saw that Levivich’s appeared milder while Iskandar323’s made changes to content that would affect a reader’s understanding of the background of the conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What makes complying with an I-P TBAN nigh-impossible is that people assert that things are part of I-P that are not actually related to I-P. So, please show me a diff (or as many as you’d like) and explain how that diff would affect a reader’s understanding of the background of the conflict, because I’d like to make sure I don’t make the same mistake that Isk did. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The idea that ArbCom should use LLMs to examine issues this sensitive seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction. I want humans, not robots, examining sensitive issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just to be clear about this, an editor who is topic-banned from subject X may now be sitebanned because they are found to be editing “non-neutrally” on a topic tangential to, but not covered by, their topic ban? I have to say I’m unsure that this is a good idea, in general. Also – in this case – the evidence does seem to be contentious, as evidenced by the 7-5 votes by ArbCom members on both the evidence and the ban. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It was part of the reason for some arbs, but by no means the sole reason for the siteban – HouseBlaster pretty succinctly laid out how one can vote against the POV-pushing motion but still vote in favor of a siteban, as they did.
    As for the POV-pushing motion itself, I’m personally split on whether it truly was or not, but I find that with a lot of the current/former actors in ARBPIA (PIA5 TBANs, sockmasters, etc), one can only assume good faith for so long before that good faith becomes naivety. With that in mind, I can see why some arbs would be less forgiving, so to speak. The Kip (contribs) 08:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m a bit unimpressed by some of the arguments for the POV-pushing, to be honest. Some of the diffs presented as the most heinous examples seem frankly uncontentious and some of the rebuttals in the community consultation seem to have been ignored by those voting for a ban (well, those arbs that actually gave a rationale for it, which would have been useful). But more generally, I’m thinking about this new idea being used more widely – would an editor with an AP2 topic ban risk a ban if they were editing “non-neutrally” on, say, the war in Ukraine? Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not impressed at all, particular given that the case started partly off the back of socks making bad faith reports on noticeboards. TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, ironic that it spiralled up from a situation where most of those making accusations against I323 (and others) were later found to be socks themselves. Frankly, the “Finding of Fact” titled Iskandar323 further POV pushing does go against a lot of the opinions in the community discussion – but again, most of those arbs supporting have provided no rationale for supporting it, whereas those opposing have (indeed, one arb’s Support is per someone else who actually withdrew their support later on). It feels … shoddily done. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who does some editing in the topic area (although minor compared to my editing on BLPs and American and Aus politics) and given that I’ve been mentioned in media and on reddit, this makes me feel very uncomfortable that I may in the future be the target of bad faith reports by socks designed to take me out of the topic. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s absolutely disgusting. Disgraceful. And phenomenally shortsighted. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath, if you think that’s happening, or think you see it happening to someone else, please let me know. I’ll do what I can. — asilvering (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Over the past couple of years I’ve cut somewhere around 300kb from Gaza war in 93 edits. I’m sure that if you cherrypicked seven, asserted they represented a pattern of POV-pushing, and got some arbs to look not-very-closely at them and not-at-all at the others, it could be a slam-dunk block. Any socks around to take up the challenge? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing non-neutrally is a problem even if the editor has no active topic bans. The fact that someone is already an identified POV-pusher is when WP:PACT comes into play. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Or maybe sets of editors editing non-neutrally in a range of orientations is Wikipedia’s version of sexual reproduction in Eukaryotes. Rather than a problem, maybe it is an essential part of the slow content optimization process. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invite the editors here to read the “community consultation” and arb votes on Iskandar’s ban and the ‘evidence’ supporting it. Nearly every Arbitrator that actually bothered to read and investigate the evidence realized that none of the edits actually supported the assertions made about them. Multiple arbs and community members wrote at length and analyzed the evidence, but it looks like a lot of the early voters simply assumed the evidence submitted was correct, and never checked the page again. This is genuinely shameful behavior from nearly half of the Arbitrators. My thanks go out to the arbs who actually did the job they were elected to do and investigated the evidence, sincerely. You tried your best, but it seems as though the arbitrator inactivity problem is only getting worse. Maybe Arbs should be required to write at least one sentence whenever they vote to ban an editor? Would that be too much? Parabolist (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it’s worth, I revisited frequently. I didn’t comment because adding more text to the page didn’t feel productive and because we can all disagree in good faith. But I saw nothing to change my impression that Iskandar is someone who is here to serve an agenda and instead of learning from the topic ban was intent on continuing the same behaviour and pushing the bounds of the ban as far as they could get away with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    In your case, you even wrote “per HB” and then didn’t comment further when HB looked at the evidence and realised it didn’t support the charge. In total, nobody has a clue what actual evidence you based your vote on. Why should we be satisfied with that? Zerotalk 13:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not going to speak for Harry, but speaking as the person who changed his vote: I am honestly a little surprised by how big a deal people are making out of this. Harry said he agreed with what I had written, namely, We’re not calling these topic ban violations, because they are not. I am saying that these are continuing the same behavior that led to the topic ban: pushing a point of view. I disagree with my past self, and therefore changed my vote, but that doesn’t mean Harry is obligated to follow my lead. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    “pushing the bounds of the ban“
    I don’t understand this argument at all. Almost all of the diffs didn’t show that. They showed him editing on a topic not within the bounds of WP:BROADLY. TarnishedPathtalk 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    For me, topic bans serve one of two purposes: to keep an otherwise-productive editor away from an area where they have a blind spot (AndreJustAndre might be a good example of that in this topic area) or to give an editor who has been problematic a chance to rehabilitate (eg NorthernWinds currently at ARCA). It’s not an opportunity to carry in regardless as long as you don’t technically breach the restriction. Your and other’s mileage may vary on the principle and its applicability to Iskandar but that’s the way I see it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    But this would rely on the editing being disruptive. If he just wasn’t allowed to edit in certain areas outside of his topic ban, that should’ve been made clear and included in the ban. Your implication here is that topic bans all include invisible adjacent area bans, where editing normally there proves that you aren’t “respecting the ban.” That’s nonsensical. Parabolist (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    An similar case could easily be made against AndreJustAndre. It would just require 7 diffs and a wild claim that the diffs don’t support, then a bunch of arbs who just rubber-stamp them either without looking or without the subject area knowledge to judge them. Given a day and a little malice, I could make a stronger case based on better diffs. But I won’t, because I don’t believe that AndreJustAndre should be banned despite multiple past disagreements I’ve had with them. Zerotalk 02:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m wondering if arbcom has ever before banned someone on such flimsy evidence. That second motion sitting there with 7 diffs that aren’t within a light year of supporting it is a real eye-opener. “Consistently non-neutral editing around the history of Judaism” is a serious charge and we are entitled to assume that no evidence for it was presented because there isn’t any. Any regular editor in any contentious topic could be banned on “evidence” as weighty as this. Nobody is safe. Zerotalk 13:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Iskandar323 has been engaged in consistently non-neutral editing around the history of Judaism” with the evidence being seven nothingburger diffs asserted at AE by Guerillero to be IP POV-pushing with no further comment, then uncritically copy-pasted at ARBM by a sockpuppet, then uncritically rubberstamped by seven arbitrators (even SFR’s reasoning amounts to “ok sure, these seems okay, but let me assert without any evidence save your good faith that there is a wider pattern of POV-pushing”). If this is really the sole basis of a site ban, I think this decision is appalling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d also point out that by the end of 8th January the voting on the FoF was 11-0 in support and on the ban it was 10-0 in support. Both eventually ended up as 7-5 because some arbs went back, looked at the vastly expanded evidence and said “yes, there’s a problem with that”. However, because the others mostly did not leave any rationale for their decisions, we can’t tell whether they did or not (I realise HJ above has said that he did), not to mention that some were not very active in that time. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just because I’ve only just noticed it, User:Elli nailed it – We should’ve held a case here, or at least some more clearly-well-defined process. Both the behavior of Levivich and Iskander323 should’ve been explored more in-depth, and that hasn’t, and won’t, happpen here. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple arbs have indicated their primary reason for banning Iskandar was not the seven diffs, but rather his repeated violations of his topic ban. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For which action had already been taken. The explicit reason for the site ban was the seven diffs allegedly continuing a pattern of POV-pushing outside the area he was TBANned from. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this whole situation be added to List of Wikipedia controversies? JHD0919 (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless it gets WP:SUSTAINED outside coverage. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It will. Various sources, which editors have argued at WP:RSN to be reliable, will recklessly or wilfully misinterpret the fuck out of this to push their position. TarnishedPathtalk 15:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CRYSTAL SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There would have been outrage regardless of the end result of the motions, both here and off-wiki. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’m shocked that Iskander’s polite and accurate comment on Talk:Hasmonean Judea apparently merited a call-out as in violation. First of all, it’s entirely correct and an issue I wanted to raise myself, just was too busy at the time to do so; second, it has nothing to do with modern Israel / Palestine nor really anything to do with “Eretz Israel” revanchism that sometimes extends to historical topics by reconstruing them in terms of millenia-later nationalism, just technical naming. If the topic ban was intended to cover truly “anything at all taking place in the region that would later become modern Israel”, then a stern scolding and reminder to steer clear would be sufficient here. A full 12-month ban seems overkill here (and if it is imposed, then I question that particular talk page comment as good evidence of it). SnowFire (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    “If” it’s imposed? It WAS imposed – Iskandar is banned now. Unless the reason you’re saying “if” is because you expect the ban to be undone? JHD0919 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is your own misreading of my statement. First of all the context should make the intended meaning obvious, but if you’re going to try to grammar-police this, it is a normal construction to say “you should not do XYZ, and if you do XYZ anyway, then ABC is not a good reason in support of it.” This is true even if XYZ already happened in one specific case. It is just phrasing the issue in the abstract, i.e. as a timeless statement that diffs like the one given do not appear to be remotely problematic and are in fact actively helpful and have nothing to do with POV-pushing. SnowFire (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “non-neutral editing” FoF is a fiasco. The vote was initially 11-0, then eventually moved to 7-5 after public outcry. No public reason was ever given by the supporters beyond “trust me bro”. How can anyone trust this process?

    I have a simple suggestion: ArbCom should stop trying to micromanage things beyond its competence, capacity and capability. Not every ill in the world has a cure which can be dispensed by ArbCom. Often the cure is worse than the disease. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I see it in a similar way. Maybe the road from healthy immune response to autoimmune disorder is paved with good intentions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-lose suggestion. Unblock Iskandar323, and have a full case, as suggested by one of your Arbs. Ensure that all of the active arbs actually take part properly. If the result is to ban them, then you have “Look, we listened, we did this properly, and the result was the same”. If the result is otherwise, you have “Look, we listened, we did this properly this time, and we realise our original decision may not have been correct”. Either way, ArbCom doesn’t lose face, which appears to be what is happening at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ARBPIA6? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No, no need. A simple Iskandar323 case would be enough (one could include Levivich as well, but I don’t think there’s any need). Should be fairly straightforward … Black Kite (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a feeling that people will want ArbCom to make all their evidence for a ban public . SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @SuperPianoMan9167, there was no private evidence involved in this case. — asilvering (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, people are saying ArbCom banned Iskandar due to “trust me bro” evidence. “Private evidence” is a bad term. It should be “publicly available evidence that ArbCom has collected that hasn’t been specifically pointed out”. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: Sorry for not making myself clear. The evidence is all public, it’s just that people want to see it all in one place. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying that it’s unreasonable to ask for evidence to be provided? I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. “People will demand Arbcom provides evidence for their decisions, though…” We should! Parabolist (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I was clarifying a comment I made earlier. My point is that multiple people (including yourself) have requested that arbs do all their discussion and reasoning on-wiki. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, ScottishFinnishRadish says “The committee was discussing this weeks before their comment.” Huldra (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    HJ: we have a rough consensus on-list
    Eek: I don’t agree with the characterization that there was a rough consensus to come here. One Arb, around Christmas, suggested bringing it here, and no one else agreed.
    SFR: The committee was discussing this weeks before their comment.
    AS: There is no private communication involved that we have failed to note … Perhaps you believe there is more discussion happening behind the scenes. There has been some – less, I think, than you’d expect – but I assure you it is the same opinions, simply stated more candidly.
    There is significant variation in the way arbs have described their off-wiki discussions, which is another aspect of this whole thing I find confusing. I hope the arbs clear it up, whether in a case, or re-open the ARM, or wherever (as I said just now at ARC). Levivich (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    You’ve noticed something about who said what, surely. — asilvering (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing that variation of comments as incompatible necessarily. There could have some discussion (per AS) that happened for weeks (per SFR). There either was or wasn’t rough consensus (so HJ and Eek are incompatible only one of those can be true) and we found out there was no consensus at all when all arbs were forced to weigh in rather than a select number (either Eek’s one or HJ’s rough consensus) but there was a slim majority of active arbs (7-5). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically true that a little discussion could happen over weeks, but the phrase “discussing this for weeks” implies a lot of discussion, not a little.
    Two of those comments suggest a lot, and two of those comments suggest a little: like I say, significant variation in the way the same things are described. This, in turn, can lead the community to the mistaken impression that a little was a lot or a lot was a little.
    The problem is that when the discussion happens in private (off-wiki, regardless of where) and then people make public (on-wiki) decisions based on those private discussions, it’s really hard for anyone else to understand the decision, nevermind evaluate it, or even just comply with it, even if those private discussions are later summarized publicly, because the summaries are going to vary, and that will lead to misunderstandings. If the off-wiki discussions amongst arbs were disclosed on-wiki, I bet everyone would understand this ARM outcome much better. Levivich (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This does look to be the most sensible course of action for everyone involved, so I support this. CoconutOctopus talk 19:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    A reminder that anyone here can file/request such a case if they feel like doing so. JHD0919 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @JHD0919: ArbCom retains jurisdiction on any sort of decisions they make, whether or not it’s cases or summary sitebans. They’ve also backtracked before after a decision was wildly unpopular (SKR, SVT). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I somewhat disagree that they’re losing face here, though the only reason I can state for that without digging myself into a hole is that ARBCOM often has to make unpopular decisions. The only case in recent memory whose outcome didn’t have a loudly negative response from at least some people was the capitalization one that saw Dicklyon sitebanned, and in that case I feel like there was a near unanimous sentiment among those uninvolved in the case itself that it was a silly subject to get that intense about. The Kip (contribs) 21:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom works for the community and is supposed to reflect the values of the community. Of course there will always be those who complain about decisions, but when the push-back is almost unanimous like here the committee should sit up and pay attention. Zerotalk 01:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not exhaustively analyzed Iskandar’s edits. But I have to agree with several colleagues above that the edits showcased as evidence in this set of motions do not rise to the level of requiring a site ban in my book. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbcom blundered here and should not squander the opportunity to correct it. Iskandar’s activity may warrant a topic ban, but not complete a ban from all of Wikipedia. A partial block on frequently-visited topics would be sufficient in my opinion. I support Black Kite’s suggestion above. Have a full case with full transparency and full participation by all arbitrators. If a full ban is still the outcome, then so be it. But I am skeptical that would be the outcome if Arbcom remained consistent with the precedents of past decisions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist, an expanded TBAN was one of the measures proposed at ARBM, but it didn’t pass as several of the arbs viewed it as pointless – that they’ve already violated the existing TBAN led to a lack of faith that they wouldn’t violate a wider one. The Kip (contribs) 20:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, but that doesn’t mean that it’s pointless to reopen the case with full transparency and full participation by all arbcom members who show they fully review understand all the information. That hasn’t happened yet. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was arb.com’s job to stop any disruption on this web-site. How did the “bad math” paragraph cause any disruption? And another of the tban violations Iskandar had done, he had already been punished for. That leaves 1 Tban violation a year ago leading to a site ban(!) As for the alleged “Iskandar323 further POV pushing”: several editors have shown it was nothing of the sort. Arb.com have just taken the words of a lier (Nehusthani) and a thief (BlookyNapsta) about an area outside Arb.com’s expertise. This is a big win for liars and thieves! Huldra (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC) PS: I support Black Kite’s suggestion above.[reply]
    an area outside Arb.com’s expertise That is a serious accusation given that ArbCom has had five full cases concerning this topic area (WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA2, WP:ARBPIA3, WP:ARBPIA4, WP:ARBPIA5). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s not, actually. You can see it in practice on the Motions page. When editors who actually were familiar with the content looked at the “POV pushing” edits collected by Guerillero to justify the ban, they found out that they did no such thing. Several arbs who switched their votes actually took the admirable step of becoming familiar with the material to research and realize this. No arguments arguing the reverse were actually put forward by the supporting arbs. Parabolist (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    this diff alters the assertion that (a) the Israelite ‘community consisted of the Twelve Tribes of Israel‘ into (b) ‘In biblical myth, the population was divided into the Twelve Tribes of Israel.’
  • To evaluate the quality of an edit of this kind (and what I do below applies to the other six diffs as well), and, specifically, to determine whether it meddles with an article to push a political point of view or simply corrects a misleading statement, one must be familiar with biblical scholarship. To radically misread that ‘evidence’ as POV-pushing suggests indeed that this was an intrusion into an ‘area outside . .(the collective topic) expertise’ of the present Arbcom board. The guiding assumption appears to be that those edits can be evaluated for their ostensible POV character , at first sight, without an arb having any particular knowledge of the topics,
  • What arbcomers do appear to have done was to intervene in a ‘content dispute’ (over the historicity of the 12 tribes narrative) and conclude that correcting a factual claim, – widely if somewhat simplistically viewed as fictitious at least since 1901 (Bernhard Luther) – by rewriting it as merely a claim, and not a fact, constitutes a ‘disruptive’ contamination of wikipedia’s neutrality. But by challenging the editor’s interventions on the pre-existing POV passages of those articles, Arbcom inadventently looked like it was endorsing the POV status quo ante.
  • That said, let me play the devil’s advocate. Honesty demands that one recognize that contemporary ideologies of political identity are grounded in numerous claims about ancient history, what Bronisław Malinowski called a charter myth – and that this tension is present even in the scholarship. There is indeed a link between the POV given in the biblical narrative and contemporary claims about national identity, and to neutralize the way we represent the former cannot but reflect back on, inflect or question the assertions re origins made in the latter. In that perspective, the arbcomers’ retroactive reading of those edits is understandable, even if not forgiveable because the judgments show negligence.
  • All knowledge has a POV fallout. The core difference is whether a POV is rooted in a thorough respect for facts, a primary concern to ascertain them and then draw whatever conclusions those constraining facts may reasonably allow, or whether the POV shows itself to be stubbornly refractive to empirical correction. That distinction is constantly ignored in wikipedia deliberations, much to the advantage of the sock farmers.
  • All these subtleties are,however, and inevitably, lost when we approach edits with a single obsessive focus on whether or not we can winnow out evidence for editorial bias assuming a very simplistic approach to the issue of POVs. To vastly extend the tban into historical topics going back 3,000 years, all with very intricate and controversial interpretative issues, is extreme overreach, demanding as it does a range of competence few if any of us have. It is a recipe for chaos or constipating anxieties for serious content contributors. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Individual edits may be perfectly acceptable, but taking many as a whole may indicate consistently non-neutral editing. Seven diffs seems to be too small of a sample size to make definite conclusions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    That’s just an essay, neither here nor there. I have always been diffident about much diff evidence is required to skewer an editor as exhibiting a disruptive behavioural pattern. If one had 50,000 edits to one’s credit, how many of those must be examined, with selection bias kicking in, to arrive at a fair, objective assessment of non-neutrality? I even don’t care however partisan an editor may be – often their tenacious defense of a POV -with attempts to dig up countervailing RS evidence- has the positive effect of making one work harder, refining one’s knowledge. What is objectionable is simply WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behaviour, which is chronic and unpunished, meaning a refusal to accept first rate evidence for what it is. Common sense would simply rule that consistent behaviour of argufying in the face of RS is disruptive, and sanctionable. But that will never happen.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperPianoMan9167: Those five cases are the tail end of a history of disruption that spans 17 distinct cases since the year ArbCom came into existence in 2004 (ZEQ, HB-J, L6W, Z-0, IZAK, PIL, ALB, YBR, XED2, IsA, I-L, DYM being the other 12). And I’m not even counting the small handful of cases that were closed with no remedies for whatever reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It is in the nature of the topic area that disruption is inevitable. That we have had 6 cases dealing with this can be read as just confirming the obvious. But the repetitiveness might also suggest that, despite ever increasing regulative measures to micromanage even the trivial nittygritty, behavioural or topical,these remedies don’t or won’t work as those who design and elaborate them hope(d) they would, since the premise always is, one can root out disruptive practices. In a creative problem-solving world, when several attempts to resolve a problem, all using increasingly refined variations on the original approach, fail, the rational thing to do is stand back and try to approach the underlying problem differently.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless you’re seriously suggesting the Palestinians and Israelis sign a Prespa Agreement–esque peace treaty and ceasefire – something which would get gonged if you tried to seriously suggest it – you’re basically asking a real-world ethnopolitical dispute that has its roots in constant backstabbings, betrayals, blood feuds, and (pseudo-)religious posturing to knock that shit off right now. What else would you suggest us do that hasn’t already been tried by the community or in the 17 A-I-related cases? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    You have completely misread what I wrote and posed questions I am forbidden to address (the historic reality), and that unwittingly certainly, baits your interlocutor to violate their tban. I made a generic statement about conflict resolutions that are notoriously bogged down in stalemates that are addressed by successive measures that seem to fail to fix the endlessly bruited ‘toxicity’ of the discursive milieu in question. One doesn’t have to be familiar with Edward de Bono to grasp that ‘thinking out of the box’ is worth experimenting with -dropping the framework of stereotypical viewpoints or panic-driven over-regulativeness, for a statistically-grounded analysis of the underlying patterns of disruption and analysing the evidence in purely empirical terms. One may not come up with an Egg of Columbus but would realize that increasing bureaucratisation is clearly counter-productive, hampers efficiency and that the obsessive refining of the niceties of the legal code to achieve behavioural sainthood as a qualifier for participation only incentivates POV-pushers to devote large parts of their time scouring for diffs of even trivial technical infractions that give them warrant for making reports and pressing for sanctions. And in that ‘dragonish’ drift, recruitment cannot but incrementally favour facile gamers thriving on creating time-sinks over competent, knowledgeable and dedicated contributors. Exactly what happened with the two socks who precipitated this most recent brouhaha and wastage of everyone’s time and energy. Whoops, that’s unreadable, since I’ve used more than a few dozen words which already exhausts modern readers, so enough.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavioural sainthood as a qualifier for participation doesn’t apply to just WP:CT/A-I, however – it applies to the other three intractible ethno-political hellhole contentious topics as well (IMH, AP2, EE), two of which (EE, IMH) have additional restrictions as A-I does and the last (AP2) eating other CTs like they were breakfast cereal.
    As for bait[ing you] to violate [your] tban, you should have anticipated that raising the question of how best to address a topic area that is so intricately linked to a real-world conflict would prompt someone – particularly someone who keeps track of this stuff – to bring up the one instance where the locus of the Arbitration was effectively overtaken by events. From there, the obvious question of “What would it take in the real world in order for the contentious topic on Wikipedia to drop the temperature?” becomes very apparent. Behavioural restrictions haven’t worked. Topic restrictions haven’t worked. No iteration of contentious topics have worked. That leaves you only with options that would egregiously breach community policies or the possibility that two sides effectively entrenched in a generations-long feud fueled by bad faith and escalating violence suddenly decide to drop the weapons and make nice for the sake of the innocents caught in the middle of it all as pawns to be played. The former would get people 86’d off the project and make the sockpuppetry worse. The latter is absurd, bordering on impossible.
    Which then brings us to “thinking outside the box”. There is a reason I refer to A-I (and the other three topic areas I mentioned) as intractible ethno-political hellholes. You cannot convince a zealot, a white-knight, or a true believer that their weltanschauung is even ever-so-slightly mistaken. This makes discussion pointless unless you specifically exclude them from the topic area. Analysing the underlying patterns of disruption gets you nowhere fast – I predict it will be tied to skirmishes or incidents related to the war, especially the Re’im attack – and analysing the evidence in purely empirical terms would require 86’ing the zealots and true believers from the topic area first, as no amount of evidence will convince them they are in any way incorrect, and their meaning of “empirical” is “Whatever the fuck supports my position or makes my opponents look monstrous”. You are right that we are not looking at an Egg of Columbus, though. The situation we have is much closer to a prisoner’s dilemma where the actors are incapable of considering any sort of cooperation that isn’t in their favour.
    As for the sockpuppets? The WMF should be having Legal work with police agencies in Galamore’s jurisdiction, as it’s public knowledge he’s cracked accounts. (Blaming it on the victims doesn’t make sense here.) For the rest of them, it’s going to be the nature of the beast. PIL and ArbCom’s misadventure with allowing a non-XC account to file a case request a couple years ago made that abundantly clear to anybody who was paying any sort of attention. You want that not to be the case? Resolve the real-world dispute. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I long and repeatedly advised any editor who shown some naive faith in the idea that editing the area in question could bring a resolution or justice to the stark realities to, well, piss off. The only useful criterion for me is readiness to master the enormous scholarship, and reduce newspaper evidence to a minimum. For it has been repeatedly shown that some (even well-respected) editors can argue for days without troubling themselves to go to a library, or order a book, or use jstor to summon up a dozen pertinent articles their interlocutors may be using in order to familiarize themselves with serious studies of each and every issue. But, if impatience eventually gets the better of you after exhaustively citing several books and articles only to find a kind of stonewalling WP:IDONTHEARTHAT talking around those sources, and you note this laziness you are, in wiki law, culpable of discourtesy for stating the obvious, and the causative obstructiveness if polite is ignored. That, in concrete, is what I am referring to re the toxic side-effects of persistent legalism as a panacea for the ills here. The same should apply to every area of conflict: privilege the scholarship, insist on extremely high standards for content sourcing, oblige participants to focus on quality. It just happens to be the case that the scholarship is far less conflicted than mainstream newspapers. Were that done, at least these POV-pushers would be constrained to actually sweat out an objection or perspire how to source a fringe idea. Unlike newspaper and similar sources, scholars have peer review, and must argue their positions within the constraints of what scholarship demands if they are to be credibly published. That, I think, was the tacit point made by our interlocutor below.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What else would you suggest us do that hasn’t already been tried by the community or in the 17 A-I-related cases? Nothing. I-P is the world’s longest-running conflict. It involves, albeit indirectly, maybe half the world: West Asia, Europe, the US. It’s the world’s longest occupation. It’s the world’s most-studied political/histoical topic: more RS have been written about I-P than about WWII. It’s one of the biggest-deal conflicts in existence, maybe the single biggest. There will never be a Wikipedia without conflict over I-P (or India-Pakistan or Russia-Ukraine, etc. etc.). Thinking there is anything the community can do to end I-P conflict on-wiki is foolhardy. There will always be disputes and thus arbcom cases. The question is: if we can’t eliminate, can we reduce? The answer is yes, we already have. When were those 17 cases? How frequent? What was the gap between PIA3 and PIA4? Between PIA4 and PIA5? That’s how you measure progress here. Levivich (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m quite disappointed to see the outcome here. The discussion section made a strong case that the evidence of Iskandar’s misconduct was both (1) weak on its own merits and (2) cherrypicked to give an inaccurate impression of the overall tenor of his editing about the ancient Middle East—note, for instance, Aquillion’s comment from January 13. Accordingly, in the face of the rebuttals raised in the discussion section, several arbitrators who initially supported the “continued non-neutral editing” and site ban motions switched to opposing them; as for the editors who remained in the support column, I assume they found the rebuttals to be unconvincing, but all I can do is assume because many of them made no public statements about their thinking at any point! It’s astonishing that the arbs seem to have viewed this matter as settled enough to close this way—an RFA with a proportionally similar trajectory would have been shot down in a heartbeat at its crat chat. As Elli suggested, a full case would have been much better for determining if any misconduct had actually occurred; I would encourage ArbCom to seriously consider holding such a case, even now, instead of just relying on the law of the instrument to force through the motion that happened to have already been proposed. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing that won here is a complete lack of transparency and an increased lack of faith in ArbCom to meaningful resolve any effectual change in this topic area.Katzrockso (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept that ArbCom exists to make the hard decisions the community can’t, and thus often has to take unpopular actions. But this is not that. This is a simple failure, if not of judgement, then at the very least of communication. Some Arbs voted based on Iskander’s entire contribution history, and that’s fine, but I am very disappointed in those who voted based on the seven diffs initially presented, about which I have made my opinion clear, and did not re-affirm their votes after their colleagues lent credence to the serious objections raised by the community, myself included. Toadspike [Talk] 02:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israel–Palestine is a third rail. And way outside my competence. I didn’t say anything about Iskandar323 in the community discussion because I didn’t want to wade into something so fraught on which I am so ignorant. But the arguments made that the decision to ban them on the evidence presented was a cock-up were so cogent that multiple Arbs changed their minds. And banning subject-matter experts who edit well on difficult topics does serious damage to the project. So I’m also going to endorse Black Kite’s proposal to have a full ArbCom case on Iskandar323’s putative t-ban violation(s) and/or POV pushing. But it’s with some trepidation, because I’m not at all confident ArbCom won’t cock it up all over again. I note that part of Black Kite’s proposal is: first, unblock Iskandar323. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper close of these ArbCom deliberations would have been a mistrial. Arbitrators are perceived as jurors who deliberate in public, making it disqualifying that the majority of those voting to evict Iskandar did not reaffirm their votes after the evidence of POV-pushing outside of the topic area was shown to be severely flawed. It reduces the basis for the conviction to: a topic ban violation for making a joke which the uninitiated would not know was related to the topic ban as it did not mention Israel or Palestine in any way. While I agree that Black Kite’s solution of a full trial appears to be a less unfair way forward after this mistrial (corrupted by sockpuppet testimony and evidence that was shown to be unconvincing), this is not what normally happens in the justice system after a hung jury fails to deliver a unanimous decision in a capital case. — SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand a bit on the reasons that I feel retrying the accused without their express consent is not really an ideal solution, I would point to the potentially very real health consequences that public trials can have on people. Continually retrying people based on the same evidence is not ideal (note that diffs 1 & 2 of the “topic ban violation” evidence were already a case of double jeopardy). — SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • It’s nice to see kindness like this on Wikipedia. But let’s not forget the bigger picture for the editor. They have some experience of public trials. They are frequently attacked offsite by dishonest POS MFs, and a motley crew of radicalized credulous fuckwits who inhabit various online cesspools delusionally self-labelled as ‘pro-Israel’, some of whom cosplay as journalists and academics while unironically supporting a state that has killed hundreds of journalists and many academics. They have been doxxed. They have been lied about by various highly partisan organizations, one of which, if I remember correctly was invited into Wikipedia to whine about bias and target people. Onsite they are targeted by manipulative pathologically dishonest sociopaths, sometimes using potentially illegally acquired accounts, dressed in the skin of people who share Wikipedia’s value system. It’s easy to forget that Wikipedia is an oasis by comparison, including ArbCom cases, regardless of the outcomes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A review by an independent panel (of past arbs, say) would make more sense than an rerun. I have no confidence that we wouldn’t just be treated to a spectacle of people trying to justify their previous votes. Zerotalk 11:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • has a decision as split as 7-5 ever passed before? ltbdl (roll) 12:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On at least four previous occasions. This finding of fact passed 7 to 6. Things have passed 6 to 5 at least 9 times. As there is no requirement to use specific wording, these figures are almost certainly too low – for example the motion this discussion is about isn’t included in the search results. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I took the time to look at all those cases, and for the record, the number of 7-5, 7-6, or 6-5 decisions listed by Thryduulf which resulted in a person being banned from the website with their talk page access immediately removed (as in this case) is precisely zero. Let’s not compare pomegranates and puppy-dogs. — SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • PIA is something I don’t want to comment on. However, in this case I’d like to join in with the vote of no-confidence from the community on this decision and ask for a full case as Black Kite has suggested. Reading the page (having been subscribed to it by accident) I’m not sure how we got to the descision that we have here. There really doesn’t appear to sufficient evidence for additional POV-pushing, and without that, voting based on overall contributor history is a somewhat slippery slope since I’m not sure it is within ArbComs remit to go “hey, yeah so they didn’t do anything specifically wrong within the scope of the case, but based on everything outside the scope of the case that the community has not asked us to handle we have decided sanction the guy anyway”. For what it’s worth, I’m specifically appalled at “trust me bro the vibes be off” comments from SFR and Guerrilo, I think we as a community deserve better transperancy than that — Sohom (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess we’re just waiting for a brave soul to open a request at WP:ARC. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following WP:BOLD I have requested a full case. I am notifying here as I believe it relevant to this discussion. You can find the case request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitration motions regarding ARBPIA5 topic bans review. CoconutOctopus talk 17:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of people are talking about this like it’s simply a difference of opinions. But it’s not. The “Iskandar further POV pushing” motion isn’t just “unpopular”, it’s unacceptable, and I don’t see how it isn’t misconduct at this point by the arbitrators who forced it through and who still to this day refuse to give an explanation or a response to the community.
As laid out clearly at WP:ARBCOND, “Arbitrators are expected to: Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles.” Yet the members of the committee who passed the motion have been completely ignoring the community, despite repeated pleas for them to respond.
We should not allow ArbCom to become a dictatorship able to ban anyone they want without even the semblance of reason or due process. As another editor has phrased it: “Any regular editor in any contentious topic could be banned on “evidence” as weighty as this. Nobody is safe.”
Also, it needs to be asked whether or not ArbCom has been acting in this way in order to comply with some sort of pro-Israel external pressures or influences. Striking for being the wrong place for this question and to avoid causing any unnecessary controversy/distraction. 00:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I’m not sure what mechanisms/procedures are in place to deal with this, but this is the problem as I see it. It is not Iskandar who is disrupting the encyclopedia, it is certain members of the current Arbitration Committee. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The penultimate above paragraph is really offensive. I am, as you perhaps know, not a fan of ArbCom at the best of times. I have at times been rather a IOHANNVSVERVS fan. I’d be much happier if you would consider striking that, and I think I would no be alone. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the penultimate paragraph, which I hope you will strike as it hinders any argument made, with arbitrators seemingly leaning towards “decline” I must ask if there is any procedure for the community to attempt to overcome ArbCom decisions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that there’s no formal process. The longer answer is that there’s technically a few options, but they’re not really suitable for cases like this that only concern one user and aren’t really for overcoming individual decisions; they’re more for a hypothetical “runaway ArbCom” that is blatantly misusing its position in a way that endangers Wikipedia’s mission:

  • First, ArbCom’s remit is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This means that if the community has clearly resolved some underlying dispute, then it no longer falls under ArbCom’s remit (and more importantly, it means that ArbCom can’t just randomly act in an area because it wants to, there has to be a clear indicator that there’s a problem the community didn’t resolve.) It is unclear what would happen if the community and ArbCom disagreed on this, but I think that conceptually it is an important point. I don’t think that this means the community can just override individual bans or decisions, though – what it means is that ArbCom can’t just declare its own crises and assign itself authority there; and that hypothetically, restrictions and rules ArbCom places for a topic area should eventually end when the underlying dispute is solved, although for topic areas where the disruption is caused by external events this may take lifetimes. In this case it’d be hard for the community to argue that the underlying issue of WP:PIA has been resolved.
  • If ArbCom were to completely dig in its heels in a case like that, or if it were to constantly behave in a way that shows a clearly-identifiable underlying problem, the next option would be to amend ArbCom’s charter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy, which requires a discussion with majority support for the amendment and at least a hundred editors total in favor of it. Doing this over ArbCom’s objections would be more of a nuclear option for fundamental or systemic problems.
  • The final, most nuclear option, would be for the WMF to step in – the only situations where I could really see this as necessary are if ArbCom were to do something so horribly wrong that it requires immediate action, or if it were to start abusing its powers to try and prevent an amendment to the charter. I don’t think anyone wants this to ever have to happen, so hopefully it never will. Mostly I only mention it because it serves as a backstop against eg. some big organization trying to flood ArbCom elections to seize control of Wikipedia or something.
But again, these are really nuclear options for situations where ArbCom has gone so far awry as to threaten Wikipedia’s functioning, not for just disliking the outcome of a single case. I list them mostly because I think it’s important that there are limits to ArbCom’s authority, rather than because I think any could ever conceivably apply here. The more realistic option in a narrow case like this, where only one person is affected and there’s no real reason to think it’s a systematic problem, is to wait for the next ArbCom elections and register your displeasure then – though note that normally few people even run for ArbCom, and ofc the next election is in nearly a year anyway. —Aquillion (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others above. Please strike the penultimate paragraph as it is casting aspersions against arbs. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top